CENEX UPDATE - 16.03.2020

CX - No sufficient, tangible and cogent evidences were gathered to establish that appellant had not received inputs in their factory and fraudulently availed Cenvat Credit only on basis of invoices - credit cannot be denied: CESTAT

CX - Cenvat credit on GTA service was contentious issue in period of dispute, with divergent views of High Courts - where issue is of interpretation of statutory provisions, extended limitation cannot be invoked: CESTAT

Cus - Since appellant had declared value which was equal to ADD, 'Nil' duty was assessed, therefore, it cannot be said that there was no provisional levy of duty and collection thereof and, therefore, Rule 21 (1) of Rules, 1995 is clearly applicable: CESTAT